git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jul 2017, #09; Mon, 31)

From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date
Aug 3, 2017, 21:07 UTC
Message-ID
<xmqqd18cweak.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To
<CALiud+nm9wu4rBY6zBXmenJj_0Mn7xeU_FAvSdn4fdH+q--Jag@mail.gmail.com>
Sahil Dua <sahildua2305@gmail.com> writes:
Show 21 quoted lines
> Ah! I had skipped this reply from Ramsay earlier.
>
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Ramsay Jones
> ...
>>>  I personally do not think "branch --copy master backup" while on
>>>  "master" that switches to "backup" is a good UI, and I *will* say
>>>  "I told you so" when users complain after we merge this down to
>>>  'master'.
>>
>> I wouldn't normally comment on an issue like this because I am
>> not very good at specifying, designing and evaluating UIs (so
>> who in their right mind would listen to me). ;-)
>>
>> FWIW, I suspect that I would not like using this interface either
>> and would, therefore, not use it.
>
> Does that mean you'd use it when "branch --copy feature-branch
> new-feature-branch" in the case when you would want to start working
> on a new branch (to modify or experiment with your current feature
> branch) on top of a branch keeping intact all the configuration and
> logs?

I am not Ramsay, but your choice of branch names in your question, i.e. "branch --copy feature new-feature", is what we do not agree with in the first place, especially when we are *on* the "feature" branch.

We view "copy A B" as a way to make a back-up of A in B. I.e. We want to keep working on A, but just in case we screw up badly, make a backup copy of A in B, so that we can recover by a "branch --move B A" later if needed. So touching B is the last thing we want to do after "copy A B" operation---hence we do not want to switch to B.

That is not to say that you are wrong to wish to create a new branch, check it out and start working on it with a single command. We already have such a command all Git users are accustomed to, which is "git checkout -b new-feature-branch feature-branch".

That existing command does not copy things other than the commit object name from "feature-branch", and I do not think it should by default. But I do not think it is wrong to extend it with a new option (think of it as "checkout --super-b" ;-) to copy other things like branch descriptions etc.

So from that point of view, your new feature conceptually fits a lot better to "git checkout", and does not belong to "git branch". That is why I do not think "git branch --copy A B" while you are on A should check out B after creating the copy.

Previous: Sahil DuaNext: Ramsay Jones
Message 4 of 15 in “What's cooking in git.git (Jul 2017, #09; Mon, 31)”
  1. Junio C HamanoJul 31, 2017
  2. Ramsay JonesJul 31, 2017
  3. Sahil DuaAug 3, 2017
  4. Junio C HamanoAug 3, 2017
  5. Ramsay JonesAug 3, 2017
  6. Ævar Arnfjörð BjarmasonAug 5, 2017
  7. Junio C HamanoAug 5, 2017
  8. Ævar Arnfjörð BjarmasonAug 6, 2017
  9. Igor DjordjevicAug 7, 2017
  10. Igor DjordjevicAug 7, 2017
  11. Ævar Arnfjörð BjarmasonAug 8, 2017
  12. Igor DjordjevicAug 8, 2017
  13. Sahil DuaAug 3, 2017
  14. Stefan BellerAug 3, 2017
  15. Junio C HamanoAug 3, 2017

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.